Okay, for the sake of argument, let's say the unions are the oligarchy on the left. You won't deny that we have an oligarchy on the right, would you? So do you want a balance of power, or are you one who opposes the democratic idea of a balance of power? Why is it that the capitalists are all for competition, but against it when the unions compete with the corporations for the rights of the workers? Capitalist treats labor as if labor were a commodity, not a human being. Capitalism by its very nature dehumanizes labor...we have seen that in our history, the dehumanization of labor for profit...in slavery, in child labor, in reduced wages for women, in poor working conditions, in unsafe working conditions, etc. So we can safely assume that if the industrialists, the corporations can get away with treating labor as poorly as possible and still show a profit...they are going to do so. Now, during the period where America was strongest, was when we had a balance of power...and now we lost that balance of power when the government...who is supposed to represent the People, not the corporations deregulated so much. What do the facts show? Increasing profit for corporations, decreasing wages and benefits of workers. We need to return to nationalism of our labor...not the multiculturalism of US corporations pimping out labor to other countries...so they can increase their bottom line, pay less taxes, etc. Jefferson warned us, and Ike warned us: I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country. Thomas Jefferson Read more: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/t/thomasjeff135362.html#ixzz1EpYUSl9X Ike warned us of the need for balance: Crises there will continue to be. In meeting them, whether foreign or domestic, great or small, there is a recurring temptation to feel that some spectacular and costly action could become the miraculous solution to all current difficulties. But each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs, balance between the private and the public economy, balance between the cost and hoped for advantages, balance between the clearly necessary and the comfortably desirable, balance between our essential requirements as a nation and the duties imposed by the nation upon the individual, balance between actions of the moment and the national welfare of the future. Good judgment seeks balance and progress. Lack of it eventually finds imbalance and frustration. The record of many decades stands as proof that our people and their Government have, in the main, understood these truths and have responded to them well, in the face of threat and stress.
We're not competitive with the rest of the world - THAT'S the problem. Not only public employees - private employees are overpaid too by overseas standards - and THAT is who the competition is! Are there interviews with private-sector employees? Are they all happy with THEIR wages and benefits? Nobody ever is - but the price point is what is paid overseas - so make the adjustment across everyone in one fell-swoop.
We are not competitive because labor is not competitive, and can't be competitive unless we also go to their level of 2nd and 3rd world emerging nations. Make the adjustment? You mean make everyone who is a worker in the US live in the same working conditions as China her in America? Oh yes...that's the plan! Might as well just sell the red states to China, take the money and distribute it to the blue states, make them self sufficient, then institute tariffs to level the playing field. Or China and India could humanize their labor force and bring them up to a 1st world level...and we know that isn't going to happen without labor unions, and a strong government that puts human rights above a commodity pool of labor.
Here is a great question: What would Hitler do if he rose to power in America tomorrow? Would he encourage the US corporations selling out the people of America? Or would he emphasize nationalism and find some group in America to blame...like liberals, Jews who run the media, the banking sector, Wall Street, etc., Mexicans, and anyone else who didn't put the Fatherland...errrrr...Homeland first. Fascism is a solution...not a nice one, but in the short run, the trains did run on time...
you all seem to be confusing public employee unions with private employee unions. the public employee unions made suicide pacts with the politicians they were electing. the pols got campaign money and votes and union demonstrations and the employees got gold plated retirements and high pay. There was not reason to have public employee unions in the first place. Democrat and in the past even republican leaders were not exactly "management" they were vote needing sycophants. Now it has to be unwound.
Sadly, I have to agree. (With the unwinding part, not with the attack on the fundamentals of unionism. Some Republican lawmakers are working, collectively, LOL, to end... collective bargaining!) This kind of market dynamic is the best indication that a social safety net is imperative.
The public employees made agreements, collectively with the elected leaders. They were based on projections into the future. Those projections turned out to be wrong. So if someone makes a contract, and things change, what happens to that original contract? Things changing financially from the side who has to pay voids the contract? What would have been better? To make sure the liability was funded properly and safely. That was not done...because the liability was not projected to be larger than the budgets of the states. Who is to blame? The unions? Not at all. The states did not have to agree with the budgets. Those contracts need to be honored. Next contract can be negotiated, fine. However, denying the right of the workers to bargain collectively is not the solution, as it was never the real problem. That's where this gets muddled. The logic is all wrong to blame the collective bargaining process for the problem. The problem is that things changed, and the states did not plan for that happening.
ok keep you public bargaining but, remove the lobbying, or campaign contributions. collective bargain, lobby, and campaign contributions, in addition to voting for you own boss... is freakin nuts and screws the tax payers. Which was fine for the democrats and the union mob until we ran out of money. Now it time to be real, or be fired.
Fine, lets remove campaign contributions from the corporations at the same time, okay? You do realize that the corporations are spending much more money than labor unions to influence our government, don't you?